|
enraged_camel posted:They don't do it "for the hell of it." They do it because gun ownership has resulted in many tragedies that could have been avoided or at least mitigated. No one wants to have their children massacred in school. And look at how successful they have been with that strategy, which definitely didn't turn into ineffectual soundbite politics divorced from reality 
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This is, I note, why I have never suggested a blanket ban and repeal on all gun laws. Much of what we have on the books works, and would work better if the BATFE and DOJ would do their duty and actually enforce it. I suspect you get the impression that I am, though, because I do not subscribe to the present narrative that disarming the populace and abrogating their (as we keep being reminded by the GOP) Constitutionally protected rights is either Common Sense or invariably a good thing regardless of the details. What narrative? I don't recall any serious, mainstream politician pushing for a total national gun ban. Not even Mitt "I don't think people have the right to own assault weapons" Romney.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What narrative? I don't recall any serious, mainstream politician pushing for a total national gun ban. Not even Mitt "I don't think people have the right to own assault weapons" Romney. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Romney was remotely ideal, and 2012 led directly to the Great Primary Rebellion of 2016. Anyway when someone unironically says "assault weapons" I don't go "Oh OK we may disagree on whether this is right but at least you're using your brain." Assault weapon poo poo is purestrain stupid in the same intellectual void (though not remotely as offensive, obviously) as "a woman's body shutting that whole thing down." It's not even wrong. They're both the kind of things that make you wonder, "OK what other issues is this idiot going to read five lines into on Wikipedia then rush off to pen a law in excitement?" skeet decorator posted:Even if it's not the most important issue among blacks and Hispanics, there is still a large amount of support for it. It would seem prudent to cater to the interests of the groups who are poised to become the majority of voters. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint? Same way I'd try to get social cons to loosen up. Tell 'em they like guns but this gay marriage thing (or anti-abortion thing, depending on where they are) are going to sink everything for them. They can't have it all but they can have some of it and hey, if you're concerned about abortion here's some ways that sex ed and conception can help bring down demand for abortions. In the same way, Dems have more social ideas that may address disparate racial outcomes and/or poverty whereas sticking to the gun control ship will usually get them nothing. And hey, reducing poverty is the #1 predictor of if you'll have tons of gun violence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What exactly do you think that proves that supports your position? That the NRA, known for being a completely partisan organization, endorsed the republican candidate for president? And yet that endorsement was more powerful than facts, since Obama doesn't want to ban guns either but that didn't stop ammo from selling out at his reelection as the Republicans and the NRA convinced everybody that he was secretly plotting to anyway. Somehow I don't think the same would have happened if the guy with a record of gun control but with an R next to his name had gotten the job. Jarmak posted:Is this supposed to be some sort of evidence that my memories of the gun control debate from the 90s were implanted by aliens? Your memories of the 90s are shaped by the subsequent framing and marketing. The assault weapon ban that everyone is mewling about was supported by George HW Bush, and Ronald Reagan even whipped for it in congress, it would likely have passed no matter who had won in 1992, probably by greater margins because a sitting Republican President would have been in a better position to whip for it. You've bought into the framing of the weaksauce assault weapons ban (which, in an attempt to appeal to hobbyists and sport shooters, was designed to affect them as little as possible by focusing only on cosmetic tacticlol poo poo like flash suppressors and buttstocks) as a secret plot to disarm the people. This was manufactured by Republicans when the party decided to abandon the legacy of Reagan and HW Bush and deliberately disseminate conspiracy theories and frighten people into voting for them and now gun control is another piece of good governance that, like education, healthcare, and infrastructure has become bad because Democrats do it. That's cool that you like your shooting hobby, I like it too, but Democrats aren't going to have better electoral success by abandoning gun control any more than they would by going full warmonger. The gun owners who are capable of looking at facts already know that Democrats aren't coming to take their guns and that things like expanded background checks are a good idea, sorry bout your pet issue. Just look at what happened when Obama floated the idea of invading Syria and deposing Assad. If a Republican president tried that they'd be pissing themselves with joy and calling us the vanguard of democracy and anyone who opposed it a traitor, but because Democrat they called him a warmonger terrorist-lover and tried to de-fund it. The President can't loving kill Osama bin Laden with a D next to his name and peel of Republicans, you think they'd vote for him if he started giving "hell yeah AR-15" speeches? They'd probably call him a terrorist. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And yet that endorsement was more powerful than facts, since Obama doesn't want to ban guns either but that didn't stop ammo from selling out at his reelection as the Republicans and the NRA convinced everybody that he was secretly plotting to anyway. Somehow I don't think the same would have happened if the guy with a record of gun control but with an R next to his name had gotten the job. President Obama pushed for an Assault Weapons Ban in TYOL 2015, after a decade of previous AWB had precisely no measurable effect on shootings, and in point of fact rifles of all types (scary black rifles and your graddaddy's 30-30 inclusive) are used in 262 homicides in 2014, a number down 283 in 2014 and down from 393 at the point the AWB sunsetted in 2004. That was the centerpiece of his big push for Sensible Gun Control after Sandy Hook. At that point you have to go with the President -wanting- to ban guns that are statistically very unlikely to be used in crime out of either fear or a desire to punish gun owners, or with the idea that the President is so poorly informed on the issue or ill educated in statistics that he actually thinks this will be an effective measure to reduce homicides. enraged_camel posted:They don't do it "for the hell of it." They do it because gun ownership has resulted in many tragedies that could have been avoided or at least mitigated. No one wants to have their children massacred in school. You want to save the lives of schoolchildren, brush up your statistical abilities and then go after cars and swimming pools. Either one is close to order of magnitude more likely to kill a schoolchild than a firearm. Hell, if you want to make a real difference, push to make universal vaccination mandatory before the old childhood diseases make a full comeback and we start seeing kids with polio again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And yet that endorsement was more powerful than facts, since Obama doesn't want to ban guns either but that didn't stop ammo from selling out at his reelection as the Republicans and the NRA convinced everybody that he was secretly plotting to anyway. Somehow I don't think the same would have happened if the guy with a record of gun control but with an R next to his name had gotten the job. Clinton signed two major gun control bills in his first two years in office, both bills passed along party lines, the fact Reagan became rather pro control in his later years doesn't change this fact. Then within less then a year the democrats then suffered what was at that point the worst electoral defeat in in US history, losing majorities in the house and senate. Gun control was a major part of the democratic party platform in the 90s and they only stopped pushing it because they got curb stomped repeatedly over it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:President Obama pushed for an Assault Weapons Ban in TYOL 2015, after a decade of previous AWB had precisely no measurable effect on shootings, and in point of fact rifles of all types (scary black rifles and your graddaddy's 30-30 inclusive) are used in 262 homicides in 2014, a number down 283 in 2014 and down from 393 at the point the AWB sunsetted in 2004. That was the centerpiece of his big push for Sensible Gun Control after Sandy Hook. Yeah this is the kind of conspiracy-theory poo poo I'm talking about. The president doesn't hate and want to punish gun owners: the reason the assault weapons ban focuses on stupid poo poo because it's an appeal to sport shooters and hobbyists that leaves the stuff they care about legal and focuses on cosmetic tacticlol crap. It's a pretty great deal for anyone who wants guns for serious purposes, it only pisses off people who think they need collapsible buttstocks to defend freedom from Obama's black panther NWO forces, unfortunately the Republicans have decided to appeal to those people and gun manufacturers found they could make a lot of money by selling gun ownership as a personal identity. Anyone capable of looking at the situation objectively like Reagan and HW Bush did can see that the assault weapons ban isn't an attack on legitimate gun ownership, it didn't lead to tyranny, and there's no sense in making it your single-issue vote unless you're a crazy conspiracy theorist and those people aren't going to vote for Democrats no matter what. It's irrelevant to me, your pet issue is not what's keeping the House and state governments in Republican hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You want to save the lives of schoolchildren, brush up your statistical abilities and then go after cars and swimming pools. Either one is close to order of magnitude more likely to kill a schoolchild than a firearm. Perhaps you need to brush up on your understanding of the differences between "accident" and "not accident".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah this is the kind of conspiracy-theory poo poo I'm talking about. The president doesn't hate and want to punish gun owners: the reason the assault weapons ban focuses on stupid poo poo because it's an appeal to sport shooters and hobbyists that leaves the stuff they care about legal and focuses on cosmetic tacticlol crap. It's a pretty great deal for anyone who wants guns for serious purposes, it only pisses off people who think they need collapsible buttstocks to defend freedom from Obama's black panther NWO forces, unfortunately the Republicans have decided to appeal to those people and gun manufacturers found they could make a lot of money by selling gun ownership as a personal identity. The AWB only and I mean only fucks with sport shooters and hobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Clinton signed two major gun control bills in his first two years in office, both bills passed along party lines, the fact Reagan became rather pro control in his later years doesn't change this fact. Then within less then a year the democrats then suffered what was at that point the worst electoral defeat in in US history, losing majorities in the house and senate. Gun control was a major part of the democratic party platform in the 90s and they only stopped pushing it because they got curb stomped repeatedly over it. Reagan was always pro gun-control, and HW Bush was too, he quit the NRA in 1995 once they started pushing their crazy anti-government militia poo poo. Gun control became a wedge issue because Republicans tried everything they could to defeat a popular president and what stuck was explicitly endorsing conspiracy theories, pandering to militias and the KKK, and claiming Clinton was plotting to disarm America in preparation for a UN takeover. Republicans have plenty of other ways to rile up the crazies, and they will do it even if Obama starts jacking himself off with gun oil and opens every speech by firing a canister of ammo into the air on full auto and saying every American should own a gun. In fact, the Tea Party would love that, they'd call him a Black Panther marxist-leninist islamofascist and run ads urging their base to turn out and vote and buy more guns. There's no shortage of crazy conspiracy theories Republicans can use to turn out their base now that they're bathed in a sea of right-wing fear-porn news and radio. The assault weapons ban is a waste of time and should be abandoned for that reason, not out of any hope that caving to one conspiracy theory will change anyone's mind. To win, Democrats need to give people a reason to turn out and vote for them like Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and for the love of god kick a few bucks over to state races instead of letting state-level Democrats twist in the wind. Jarmak posted:The AWB only and I mean only fucks with sport shooters and hobbyists. You don't need a flash suppressor to hunt or send rounds downrange, it's for fantasizing about how you'll take out VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Do you think Romney wanted to implement federal gun control? I forgot to answer this question, yes I think Romney is personally in favor of gun control, and those personal beliefs probably remained despite his pandering for the nomination (same with his other stances like pro-choice). I expect President Romney would have signed gun control legislation if it had somehow come across his desk, and anyone who voted Romney over Obama on that basis alone has bought into the branding of Republicanism as a personal identity and was deluding himself about Romney's character and beliefs in order to justify an emotional partisan vote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Perhaps you need to brush up on your understanding of the differences between "accident" and "not accident". Accidents kill the body whereas non-accidents kill the soul, amirite? Death isn't a qualitative experience duder. If your stated position is that Thing X is bad because it causes death then it's totally reasonable to question why you're apparently less angry about and/or mentioning X before Thing Y, when Thing Y causes even more death. VitalSigns posted:You don't need a flash suppressor to hunt or send rounds downrange, it's for fantasizing about how you'll take out For the 9000th loving time, it's not about changing the other guy's supporters. It's about not giving them a reason to turn out when they might stay home on election day instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah this is the kind of conspiracy-theory poo poo I'm talking about. The president doesn't hate and want to punish gun owners: the reason the assault weapons ban focuses on stupid poo poo because it's an appeal to sport shooters and hobbyists that leaves the stuff they care about legal and focuses on cosmetic tacticlol crap. It's a pretty great deal for anyone who wants guns for serious purposes, it only pisses off people who think they need collapsible buttstocks to defend freedom from Obama's black panther NWO forces, unfortunately the Republicans have decided to appeal to those people and gun manufacturers found they could make a lot of money by selling gun ownership as a personal identity. The AWB doesn't appeal to sport shooters worth a drat. Maybe you're not aware, but the AR-15 platform includes several of the most popular shooting sports guns currently on the market. It's a huge seller, and given that several hundred thousand of them are manufactured a year versus, again less than 300 homicides, not exactly a standout for regulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:For the 9000th loving time, it's not about changing the other guy's supporters. It's about not giving them a reason to turn out when they might stay home on election day instead. The conspiracy theories and fearmongering Republicans use to turn out the base are not constrained by facts such as "the positions both parties actually support" or "things the president is actually capable of doing", both candidates in 2012 personally believe in the assault weapons ban, yet only one of those candidates prompted a run on guns and ammunition by the Republican base despite the fact that Republicans retained control of the house and didn't have to pass anything they didn't want to pass. Liquid Communism posted:The AWB doesn't appeal to sport shooters worth a drat. Maybe you're not aware, but the AR-15 platform includes several of the most popular shooting sports guns currently on the market. It's a huge seller, and given that several hundred thousand of them are manufactured a year versus, again less than 300 homicides, not exactly a standout for regulation. You don't have to convince me that a narrow ban on tacticool features is pointless legislation and do nothing for public safety, and that there are much better gun control proposals out there (proposals which the Democrats should not abandon because they are good policy). But it's not going to matter to the kind of silly people who single-issue vote over fantasies that their hobby is all that stands between America and islamocommunist tyranny, presenting it as the silver bullet to a Dem house majority is frankly silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Accidents kill the body whereas non-accidents kill the soul, amirite? Death isn't a qualitative experience duder. If your stated position is that Thing X is bad because it causes death then it's totally reasonable to question why you're apparently less angry about and/or mentioning X before Thing Y, when Thing Y causes even more death. I never said I'm less angry about car accidents or swimming pools. It's just that we happen to be talking about guns at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Today it's seatbelt laws, tomorrow the government is going to take your cars away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Reducing automobile deaths by investing in safer alternatives like public mass transit would actually be really good policy, although I don't really see how it'd be a game-changing electoral strategy to win back the house so I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Reducing automobile deaths by investing in safer alternatives like public mass transit would actually be really good policy, although I don't really see how it'd be a game-changing electoral strategy to win back the house so I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread. It doesn't. DeusExMachinima is just using the good ol' "you shouldn't care about X because completely-unrelated-issue Y causes many more deaths!" trolling tactic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:For the 9000th loving time, it's not about changing the other guy's supporters. It's about not giving them a reason to turn out when they might stay home on election day instead. If it's about voter turnout then dropping gun control makes even less sense. Black and Hispanic voter turnout is considerably less than the white voter turnout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter...al_Election.png). If the black and hispanic voter turnout was on par with the white turnout this thread wouldn't exist, the best thing the Democratic party can do is to start pushing policy that brings minorities to the polls. Again, 35% of the democratic base are black or Hispanic, both groups strongly support gun control and are poised to become the largest voting bloc in the next few decades. Designing a platform around hoping a dying majority finds it milquetoast enough to not bother turning out to vote is dumb as hell when it means alienating 35% of your base. And if dropping parts of the traditional Democratic platform is the best strategy, why is gun control the one to drop? There's plenty of single-issue voters and no one has provided any evidence that gun control voters are the bulk of them. Seriously, you guys haven't provided any evidence to support your position, and even if it's winning strategy now it will be a losing strategy once the country's demographics shift. So please either shut the gently caress up about guns, or at least actually try to make a substantive argument for how dropping gun control will realistically win Dems the house back. My suggestion for winning back the house would be to cater its platform to the black and hispanic vote. Dems should actually engage with movements like #blacklivesmatters and bring parts of their platform to the national stage. Pushing immigration reform, police reform, and drug reform would increase the voter turnout for Dems far more than dropping gun control would reduce the voter turnout for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
How can the Democratic Party win back the house? The Democratic Party? You mean the political party that wins when voter turnout is high and has been having trouble energizing their base because of their bitter disappointment in the party establishment's inability to fight for important left wing causes? Clearly the solution is to stop fighting for popular policies and wedge issues. Seriously though, especially considering that Democratic candidates for the house do get more votes than their Republican counterparts, the main issues with the House and Senate are institutional. The House and Senate bias rural areas which favor the Republican party, so if the Democrats want more wiggle room (or a fair democratic system) then electoral and structural reform is necessary. In the meantime, they need to energize their base as much as possible, which means racing to the left on all issues. This is mainly the case in regards to economic issues but social issues (like, I don't know gun control) are important as well. If the Democratic party is really competent, then a left wing economic message could swing those poor rural voters that are traditional Republican voters and turn the whole gerrymandered system upside down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Proposition Joe posted:How can the Democratic Party win back the house? I'm also confused why they dropped all the traditional leftist populist policies like fighting economic disparity, providing cheaper and more accessible healthcare, education, and ending the drug war. The policy of campaigning for and motivating hardcore Republican voters to flood to the polls seems really odd to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The policy of campaigning for and motivating hardcore Republican voters to flood to the polls seems really odd to me. This reasoning is pretty bizarre, considering the type of people who would "flood to the polls" over gun control will still do so even if the other party seemingly stops caring about gun control, because such people are legitimately crazy conspiracy theorists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This reasoning is pretty bizarre, considering the type of people who would "flood to the polls" over gun control will still do so even if the other party seemingly stops caring about gun control, because such people are legitimately crazy conspiracy theorists. Yes, those single-issue voters responding at state and national levels to politicians proposing legislation about 'X' issue are indeed insane conspiracy theorists. After all, they aren't on your side, are they?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Sorry, maybe try stating your opinion with less rhetoric and sarcasm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't need a flash suppressor to hunt or send rounds downrange Why are you pro-murder?  Above: The evil that dooms America to a thousand years of God's punishment. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Sorry, maybe try stating your opinion with less rhetoric and sarcasm? Rhetoric? Sarcasm? Please - to any poster that can see facts my statements were totally bereft of sarcasm or rhetoric. Now - to an idiot that can't see beyond the surface, my post was practically eye-rollingly sarcastic, but who will you believe and support? Me, or your obviously inadequate ability to perceive and reason? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
The elected/party establishment Democrats are far more afraid of the republican base and media than of their own constituency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You also don't need one for murder. In fact, it makes murder a tiny bit more difficult by making your murder weapon slightly harder to conceal. Try reading. I think the AWB is bad legislation and should be abandoned for its ineffectiveness, just on the basis of good governance. I don't believe that doing so will significantly depress Republican turnout because voting on that basis alone requires conspiracy-nut delusions that the federal government is plotting to reduce the country to despostism and the vital importance of flash suppressors and sweet-rear end buttstock designs in preventing this, along with a refusal to examine basic facts like the Republican 2012 nominee's long-standing personal support of the AWB. I don't believe the Democrats should abandon good policy like the support of universal background checks (supported by the NRA after the Columbine massacre with the slogan "be reasonable", withdrawn after the NRA discovered it was more lucrative to increase membership by flogging conspiracy theories that background checks are a plot to build a federal registry that will be used to round up and disappear gun owners/whites/heterosexuals/Christians). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
I makes perfect sense for the Democrats to double down on gun laws. Gun laws are extremely popular among the Democratic base, popular among independents, and split the Republican base. Also some gun control proposals like universal background checks are overwhelmingly popular even among Republicans.  The idea that hordes of Republicans and independents will turn out and destroy the Democrats over their gun proposals is simply not based in fact. Literally, the opposite is the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Well yes but you're probably assuming a Republican's idea of a background check isn't just a paper bag test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Try reading. VitalSigns posted:I don't believe the Democrats should abandon good policy like the support of universal background checks
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:I makes perfect sense for the Democrats to double down on gun laws. Gun laws are extremely popular among the Democratic base, popular among independents, and split the Republican base. I like how your metric for support of gun laws is a survey question so vague as to be completely useless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Actually, the language used in those polls isn't that vague
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Actually, the language used in those polls isn't that vague They're still irrelevant. "Should the candidate listen to music" *90% respond 'yes'* *1% care when it's voting time* The very fact that basically all Republicans say they're pro gun control yet the Republican party fails to include "we're doing gun control The American Way, unlike those sissy pinko democrats  " as a major point in its programme tells you that your poll is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Actually, that just shows the Republicans are out of touch with their own base so are the NRA
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Actually, that just shows the Republicans are out of touch with their own base Let's see what the current Republican front-runner for President has to say on the issue. No type or feature bans, no new background checks, and 50-state carry licenses. Ok, maybe The Donald is an outlier. Ted Cruz is a Canadian, he must hate guns right? Nope. Turns out he has voted against everything ever that even looked a tiny bit like gun control, authored a bill to make interstate firearms sales easier, and is endorsed by the NRA and GOA. Starting to look like you're wrong about this whole "The GOP is too far to the right for its voters" thing. Does the fantasy world you live in have unicorns? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
"Having faith in scientific polling = living in a fantasy world" - the actual, unironic belief of forums poster Rent-A-Cop e: Rent-A-Cop posted:Starting to look like you're wrong about this whole "The GOP is too far to the right for its voters" thing. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:This isn't a belief I hold and is in fact something you made up of whole cloth Chomskyan posted:Actually, that just shows the Republicans are out of touch with their own base
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
quote:"Pointing out methodical flaws, misinterpretation and misapplication of polls = living in a fantasy world" - the actual, unironic belief of forums poster Chomskyan
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
I'll explain this step by step. The Republicans oppose universal background checks. We know this because they filibuster bills and amendments that expand background checks. According to scientific polling their base is overwhelmingly in favor of universal background checks. So the Republicans are out of touch with their base on this issue. blowfish posted:"Pointing out methodical flaws, misinterpretation and misapplication of polls = living in a fantasy world" - the actual, unironic belief of forums poster Chomskyan Red and Black fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 10:50
|
|